No wonder I've noted a touch of desperation among left-wing bloggers in recent weeks -- it looks like the Democrats may be about to lose what they believed to be a "sure-thing" election here in CD22.

That isn't my assessment -- that is the conclusion that one has to draw based upon the polling data found in Monday's Houston Chronicle.

The Republican write-in effort to hold former Rep. Tom DeLay's congressional seat, once viewed as a long shot, has created a tight race, according to a Houston Chronicle-11 News poll.

Thirty-five percent of respondents said they would vote for a write-in candidate, a statistical tie with the 36 percent support for Democrat Nick Lampson, according to the poll of more than 500 likely voters in the 22nd Congressional District.

Most who say they will write in a candidate plan on naming Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the Houston city councilwoman backed by the Republican Party. Two lesser-known candidates also are running as write-ins.

One voter in four is still undecided.

Libertarian Bob Smither, the only person besides Lampson on the general election ballot, drew 4 percent support.

The third option on that ballot is "write-in." Voters who make that selection on the electronic voting machines that most will use are directed to an alphabet screen, where they use a wheel to spell out their choice's name a letter at a time.

And since the names of all eligible write-in candidates will be posted in each voting booth, I feel confident that people will not be intimidated by the process. Indeed, I keep hearing from folks who have early voted that they are hearing the sound of wheels spinning and buttons being pushed by those around them -- an indication that there are a great many CD22 voters who are taking the time to use the write-in option to select a candidate.

What the polls show is that Lampson has only 36% of respondents saying they will vote for him -- while 35/1% indicate a plan to vote for a write-in candidate. Of that percentage, 79.4% (or 28% overall) plan on voting for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. That is an incredible total at this point, and likely to grow as the undecided vote breaks Republican in this heavily GOP district.

Even more important -- both for this year and for 2008 -- if Shelley Sekula-Gibbs were on the ballot, she would be leading Lampson 52% to 35%. There is clearly a preference for her in this race, and only Democrat efforts to keep any Republican off the ballot following DeLay's resignation make this seat one that can be considered "up for grabs".

And actually, I would note this is a Zogby poll, and they tend to favor Democrats. I'm therefore betting the numbers are actually even closer than this result indicates.

UPDATE: And look who came stumping for Shelley today -- President George W. Bush himself!

UPDATE II: Some interesting pieces from RedState.com on Shelley's campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

I've recently been accused of racism by a local blogger (echoed by a commenter here) because, among other things, I offended liberals by making a comment about a local African-American Democrat and crack cocaine.

But now I have a question for those who want to make such an accusation.

On liberal blogger Taylor Marsh's site, she makes this assessment of a prominent Republican.

Liddy Dole was on crack this morning on Fox "News."

Do you find that statement unacceptable? If not, is the statement acceptable because Dole is white or because she is Republican -- or is it the combination of Dole's whiteness and Republicanism that makes it acceptable?

Or is it just that you folks are are alarmists who like to make the charge of racism whenever possible, just to discredit your opponents?

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, if you claim that black votes are not counted or not counted accurately, eventually people are going to start believing you and decide that going out to vote just isn't worth the time.

or Democrats like these in tight races, black voter turnout will be crucial on Election Day. But despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally, there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans.

“This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we’re having to go out of our way to counter them this year,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist.

This will be the first midterm election in which the Democratic Party is mobilizing teams of lawyers and poll watchers, to check for irregularities including suppression of the black vote, in at least a dozen of the closest districts, Ms. Brazile said.

DemocratsÂ’ worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.

And more than three times as many blacks as whites — 29 percent versus 8 percent — say they do not believe that their vote will be accurately tallied.

Voting experts say the disillusionment is the cumulative effect of election problems in 2000 and 2004, and a reaction to new identification and voter registration laws.

Long lines and shortages of poll workers in lower-income neighborhoods in the 2004 election and widespread reports of fliers with misinformation appearing in minority areas have also had a corrosive effect on confidence, experts say.

The harder question is whether this jaded outlook will diminish turnout.

Won't it be amusing if the Democrats are hoist on their own petard, and a big part of their coalition stays home because tehy believe -- incorrectly -- that their vote won't be counted anyway?

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

That is what it looks like to some observers, especially to former representative Talmadge Heflin, who lost to current state representative Hubert Vo in 2004 by a mere handful of votes.

A Vietnamese-language radio ad campaign that backers call a get-out-the-vote effort amounts to a dollars-for-votes scheme to help a Vietnamese-American legislator, his challenger claims.

The state House District 149 flap concerns ads urging early votes at an Asian-American community center, and pointing out that $5 coupons available at the center can be used at a nearby mall.

The Vo campaign disavowes all involvement in the ad campaign, which is sponsored by a Vietnamese community group. And the group insists {wink nudge} that the intent of the ad is to boost anemic voter turnout in their community, NOT to help Vo.

"We have 35,000 Vietnamese registered voters and only 12,000 actually vote, so what we did was create the One Brings One campaign urging people to bring a family member to the polls to vote with them," said Van Huynh, executive director of the group.

"Our businesses felt it would be helpful and fun to create something enjoyable for voters, so they offered coupons for use at the Hong Kong Mall. Anyone can come for the coupons. We don't obligate them to vote. And we have a disclaimer on our ads saying this campaign is not related to any candidate or any election."

Huynh said the group is awaiting an official opinion from Harris County officials on the legality.

"We have turned over all our scripts," he said. "If the officials say this violates election laws, we will immediately drop the whole campaign."

David Beirne, spokesman for Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, the county's elections administrator, said he advised the group to stop running the ads and initially thought they had been dropped.

When group leaders continued running them and asked for an official opinion, Beirne turned the matter over to the District Attorney's and U.S. Attorney's offices for review.

But the ad only runs on Vietnamese-language radio, not on any stations that cater to teh wider community in the district. Given that this just happens to be Vo's base, it seems mighty convenient.

And an awful lot like traditional Democrat tactics of offering a beer, a pack of smokes, or five bucks to those who go out and vote "the right way."

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

I understand that there are arguments on both sides of the gay marriage issue that folks find persuasive. But yesterday's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court should frighten and offend folks on either side of the issue. After all, it is a case of judicial activism run amok.

The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling that gay couples are entitled to rights no different from those of heterosexual couples.

The court gave state legislators 180 days to craft a bill offering same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, though it appeared to leave open a choice between calling the status "marriage" or "civil unions."

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," the court said in its 4 to 3 ruling.

Now the problem here should be obvious to anyone who isn't looking at the decision from a "results-oriented" perspective. The justices do not find a right to gay marriage in the state's Constitution -- and then go on to overturn the status quo anyway on vague theory taht "the status quo is intolerable". They order that the legislature act in 180 days to create gay marriage -- in fact, whetehr or not they do so in name. And the minority dissented not because of this radical judicial activism -- no, they don't feel the court was activist enough! they wanted teh court to create gay marriage and implement it through judicial fiat! In both cases, however, they ignore th specific policy decisions of the state legislature to NOT create gay marriage when they passed a domestic partnership law.

This could have some serious impact in New Jersey and elsewhere.

The New Jersey decision could stoke the fires for social conservatives elsewhere in the nation, who during this election cycle have complained loudly of their unhappiness with the Republican Party. New Jersey, however, tends toward social liberalism -- albeit with strong pockets of social conservatism. As the court's decision stops short of mandating same-sex marriage, few expected it to unhinge a taut race for the U.S. Senate between Sen. Robert Menendez (D) and Republican Thomas H. Kean Jr., according to political observers. Menendez and Kean oppose same-sex marriage, although Kean has gone further and called for a state constitutional amendment to ban it.

"If the Supreme Court had flatly forced the state to recognize gay marriage, it would have had a negative effect and rallied the conservative Republican base in New Jersey and hurt Robert Menendez," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "As it stands, he should be okay, but this could rally evangelicals elsewhere."

I disagree. The Kean-Menendez race has been tightening. I think it could be enough to push Tom Kean over the top -- all without becoming "unhinged".

If Kean were to focus on the issue of judical activism and the importance of keeping a GOP majority to ensure that judges who recognize the constitutional limits of their office are confirmed, it could gain him votes. Ditto a stronger emphasis on the constitutional amendment issue.

On the other side of the river in Pennsylvania, this could help Rick Santorum defeat Bob Casey, Jr..

In Maryland, this could help Michael Steele garner a few more black votes for his GOP race, given that blacks tend to be conservative on the gay marriage issue.

Similarly, this could swing a few House races to the GOP as well.

And those eight gay marriage referenda around the country? I think they could now be wins for the traditional marriage side of the issue, which was in doubt after New York and California courts refused to do what the New Jersey judges have.

UPDATE: And that is a new direction being tried by conservatives around the country.

MORE AT: Malkin, Hot Air, Church & State, Blogs for Bush, Ace of Spades, Riehl World View, Wide Awakes, Gay Patriot, Wizbang, Don Surber, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 6 kb.

Good grief -- the Democrats are attacking pro-abortion liberal GOP write-in candidate Don Richardson, who hasn't voted for a Republican in a primary in this century, as "too conservative for Texas".

Republican Congressional Write-In Candidate Don Richardson Is Too Conservative For Texas

Republican congressional write-in candidate Don Richardson wants to:

- Put American troops on the border to stop illegal immigration
- Allow law enforcement officials to wiretap suspects without a warrant
- Permit the government to read suspects' e-mails without a warrant
- Allow the government to conduct random searches without a warrant

Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

The man doesn't even register in opinion polls. Why is the DCCC attacking him? Could it be an attempt to get some conservatives to vote for him to ensure the defeat of Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the official GOP write-in candidate? Could it be that the Democrats are running scared in the race, believing that the good doctor might beat the Democrat carpetbagger?

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, she will be beholden to Dingell and Rangel and Murtha and all the other hard-lefties in her party who are afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

So while she might not push such a move, would she block one by other members -- members of her own senior leadership?

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged not to pursue impeachment of President George W. Bush if Democrats win the November election.

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time," and suggested Republicans -- who have controlled the House for 12 years -- would make political hay out of it if Democrats tried to impeach Bush.

"Wouldn't they just love it if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth after 12 years is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."

Actually, Nancy, they are lame ducks whether you people win or not. And I see nothing in your "pledge" that is binding on any other Democrat.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, that is the analysis by Barron's Magazine, being touted by Drudge.

BARRON'S COVER Survivor!
The GOP Victory

By JIM MCTAGUE

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers, BARRON's claims in their next edition. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years -- and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don't see it.

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

I still have hope.

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

A great day for the integrity of American elections. Now we just need such laws in 49 other states and the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Arizona may enforce a new state law requiring voters to show a photo identification card at the polls on Election Day this year, despite a pending lawsuit by opponents who say the measure will disenfranchise the poor, minorities and the elderly.

In its unanimous five-page ruling, the court did not decide whether the Arizona law was constitutional. Rather, it overturned a federal appeals court in San Francisco that would have blocked enforcement of the law until the opponents' suit could be decided.

That would take too long, the court said, noting that, "in view of the impending election," Arizona needed "clear guidance."

The actual impact of the Arizona law, which was approved in a statewide referendum two years ago but has not yet been applied, was still too unclear to justify changing the state's plans so close to Nov. 7, the justices said.

What is the requirement?

Arizona, which borders Mexico and has seen a surge in migration in recent years, is one of several states that have recently enacted a photo-ID requirement in response to reports that illegal immigrants and other ineligible voters have been casting ballots.

The Arizona law requires voters not only to present proof of citizenship when they register but also to present a photo ID when they go to the polls. Those without a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot, but their votes do not count unless they can produce a valid identification card within five days.

It requires proof of identity and residence -- hardly unreasonable. And it provides a method for those who don't have the identification on Election day to have their vote count. The IDs are even free if you cannot afford them.

Now if only we could find a way to require proof of citizenship as well.

By the way, while the Court's opinion said it is not ruling on the merits of the case, this decision makes me believe that they lean in favor of the identification requirement. If there was a serious probablility of the anti-identification forces winning, they would have enjoined enforcement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't smoke. I consider it a disgusting habit, and question the sanity of those who engage in it. I've watched too many friends and family members die of smoking-related illnesses.

But I oppose the half-hearted "smoking ban" measures that are being proposed and implemented here in Houston and other places in the US.

As Houston debates whether to ban smoking in bars, cities across the country are enacting their own smoking bans, adding fuel to a movement that has gained momentum during the past few years.

In the two weeks since Mayor Bill White released a draft ordinance to extend the city's ban, which council members will consider today, at least four smaller municipalities across the country, as well as France, have banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

Houston's decision could affect how state lawmakers approach the issue, said Joe Cherner, an expert on the smoking-ban movement and founder of BREATHE — Bar and Restaurant Employees Advocating Together for a Healthy Environment.

"If Houston passes a strong law, Texas will pass a law within a year," he predicted, based on how other states have reacted to bans by their largest cities.

Houston's existing law prohibits smoking in dining areas of restaurants but allows it at bars. Customers can smoke at bars within restaurants so long as the smoke doesn't drift into the dining area.

The mayor's proposed changes would extend the ban to bars but include some exemptions such as cigar shops, outdoor patios and some private functions.

Council members also will consider various amendments to the proposal. One would exempt stand-alone bars that were in operation before Sept. 1, and others would extend the ban to cigar shops and most outdoor patios.

The council is divided on the issue, so it's unclear which, if any, of the proposals has the best chance of being approved.

We have the evidence that smoking is harmful, and (arguably) that second-hand smoke is equally dangerous. And yet smoking continues to be legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Governmen continues to raise revenue off of the addiction of its citizens to a clearly dangerous substance. I find that unacceptable.

So I will come flat out and say it -- either we need to accept the liberty argument that people should be free to smoke, or we should accept the argument that cigars, cigarettes, snuff, chew, and other such products are so irredeemably dangerous that their production, sale, and possession should be banned. Quit the half-hearted measures and just do it.

Or just don't do it, and repeal all restrictions on the basis that adults have a right to do with their bodies what they want to do with them.

The middle ground on this issue is not principled and not in the public interest. Either be willing to follow the logical outcome of every study of the effects of tobacco on the grounds of public health, or admit that liberty dictates allowing people to make dangerous choices and businesses to cater to those choices if they desire.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.

The Washington Post raises interesting questions about who would become speaker -- and potentially president in the unlikely deaths of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- under a secret list of individuals as "Speaker Pro Tem".

But that is not the interesting part to me.

Perhaps the biggest question, some lawyers say, is whether a House speaker -- full time or pro tempore -- can assume and keep the presidency under any circumstance. A statute, not the Constitution, lists the speaker's place in the line succession.

A case can be made that no one in Congress qualifies as an "officer" eligible to assume the presidency under Article II of the Constitution, said Neil Kinkopf, a professor of law at Georgia State University. The question may never be settled, he said, because the Supreme Court would take it up only if a speaker became president and someone challenged the action in court.

My guess? This would constitute a political question with which the courts would be unlikely to involve themselves. And given that speaker (and President Pro Tem of the Senate) are boh constitutionally ordained offices, I'd have to argue that they do qualify as "officers" for purposes of the succession.

But if they don't, would any individual occupying a statutorily created position as a cainet secretary qualify?

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

This news just breaking.

Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay person elected to Congress, died early Saturday at Boston Medical Center, several days after he collapsed while walking his dog, his husband said.

Studds fell unconscious Oct. 3 because of what doctors later determined was a blood clot in his lung, Dean Hara said.

Studds regained consciousness, remained in the hospital, and seemed to be improving. He was scheduled to be transferred to a rehabilitation center, but his condition deteriorated Friday and he died at about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, Hara said.

My sympathies extend to his survivors. May they be comforted in this time of loss.

Of course, i don't write about every deceased former member of Congress. But it is quite appropriate to do so, given what he is best known for and its relationship to certain current events in Washington.

Gerry Studds had sex with one page and made inappropriate advances on two others. he admitted it. he refused to apologize for it. he turned his back on the House of representatives and rejected the censure vote of his fellow members over it. And he stayed in Congress, reelected with the full support of the Democrat leadership of the House and the Democrat Party, serving six additional terms until he retired after the 1996 elections. He was even given a committee chairmanship and was honored by having a National Marine Sanctuary named after him. So much for concern about the safety of pages by the Democrats, who now hypocritically object to the creepy words and dirty talk of disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley and the failure of the GOP leadership of the House to psycically know about IMs that no one showed them.

UPDATE: The guys over at GayPatriot have a great piece on Studds -- and note these two quotes upon his passing.

“Gerry’s leadership changed Massachusetts forever and we’ll never forget him. His work on behalf of our fishing industry and the protection of our waters has guided the fishing industry into the future and ensured that generations to come will have the opportunity to love and learn from the sea. He was a steward of the oceans.”

- U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

—

“No one fought harder for human rights, particularly in Latin America; for our environment; and for the fishermen of New England and the entire nation. He was a true pioneer.”

- U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., whose wife, Lisa, once worked as an aide to Studds.

In other words, even in the midst of the Mark "Talk Dirty To Me" Foley scandal, Democrats find it impossible to condemn a Democrat ex-congressman who actually did have sex with a page. Incredible!

Oh, and there are two other quotes that they left out of their piece hat I feel need to be included.

"Gerry was a stalwart champion of New England's fishing families as well as a committed environmentalist who worked hard to demonstrate that the cause of working people and the cause of the environment go hand in hand with the right leadership. When he retired from Congress, he did not retire from the cause, continuing to fight for the fishing industry and New England's environmental causes.

- U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

---

"I am very saddened by the death of Gerry Studds. From his days in the early 1970s as an articulate and effective opponent of the Vietnam war, through his consistent leadership on environmental issues, to his insistence that the U.S. government stop ignoring the AIDS crisis, Gerry was a forceful advocate for causes that were not always popular and that were consequently shunned by many politicians."

- U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Leading Democrats all. I guess its not what you do, its how you vote that counts. After all, its for the children -- and Gerry Studds was all about children.

I bet that Mark Foley gets no such eulogies on his death -- but then again, his party didn't run him for reelection a half dozen times after he was exposed, either.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Bullwinkle Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World County, Clash of Civilizations, Right Nation, Is It just Me?, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, The World According to Carl, Church & State, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Jo's Cafe

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 757 words, total size 6 kb.

I'm disgusted that Bob Ney did not resign upon entering a guilty plea on bribery charges -- indeed, I believed he should have resigned when he announced the deal some weeks ago. I'm shocked that the prosecutors did not mandate he do so immediately as a condition of his plea deal. Those who take bribes have no place in Congress -- or any other public office.

Representative Bob Ney, the first member of Congress to confess to crimes in dealings with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to corruption charges Friday but said he would not immediately resign.

Mr. Ney, Republican of Ohio, announced last month that he intended to plead guilty, admitting that in return for official acts, he had accepted tens of thousands of dollarsÂ’ worth of gifts from Mr. Abramoff that included lavish trips, meals and tickets to concerts and sporting events. He faces a prison term of more than two years.

But what had not been expected at FridayÂ’s court hearing was Mr. NeyÂ’s disclosure that he intended to remain in Congress for now. The announcement appeared to surprise and infuriate House Republican leaders, who are trying to tamp down other scandals that are threatening to damage the party in next monthÂ’s Congressional elections.

After learning that Mr. Ney would not step down immediately and would continue to draw his $165,200-a-year salary, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and other Republican leaders said they would move to expel him as soon as Congress returns next month for a postelection session.

“Bob Ney must be punished for the criminal actions he has acknowledged,” they said in a statement. “He betrayed his oath of office and violated the trust of those he represented in the House. There is no place for him in this Congress.”

The White House joined in calling for Mr. Ney to resign immediately. “What Congressman Ney did is not a reflection of the Republican Party,” said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman. “It’s a reflection of Congressman Ney, and he ought to step down.”

I'm heartened by the GOP moves to rid themselves of this criminal -- though I am disturbed that they were willing to wait until after the plea to expel their corrupt colleague. After all, his admission of guilt should have been sufficent to trigger an expulsion vote.

By the way, I knew Jack Abramoff way back when -- a one of several members heads of the national College Republicans I've had the opportunity to know (one, Tony Zagotta, was a good friend back during our days at Illinois State). That association makes me more disgusted, rather than less, by the misdeeds we are learning of as this investigation unfolds, and makes me more desirous of seing all involved severely and justly punished.

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 AM | Comments (93) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

John Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam case, decided to bring the level of political dialog to his own level.

"Screw them," Rep. John Murtha said of Republicans in an email sent to the liberal political group MoveOn.org on Wednesday. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who is urging a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, added that he needs its members' help to throw GOP congressmen "out of power -- as many of them as possible."

"A year ago when I presented my plan for Iraq, I did it to provide leadership and protect our troops," Murtha stated in his email. "The Republicans have spent their time name-calling while the situation for our troops in Iraq gets worse. They've tried to smear me, other veterans, Democrats, you and anybody who stands up to them.

"Well, let me say one thing right now: screw them," the 16-term congressman declared. "Those gravestones at Arlington cemetery don't say Democrat or Republican on them. We are all patriots.

I don’t believe you are a patriot. I don’t care how long you served or how many decorations you have – your desire to cut and run in the face of the enemy is a cowardly abrogation of the security of the United States.
And I think this presentation of your record, Congressman Murtha, bears that assertion out.

Also on Thursday, Larry Bailey, president of Vets for the Truth (VFTT) -- an organization working to "boot Murtha" from Congress on Nov. 7 -- agreed that the congressman's attitude in his email is something voters should consider.

Bailey told Cybercast News Service: "'Screw them' is what John Murtha has said for 32 years to:

• "Iraq War veterans, who have tried unsuccessfully to discuss that conflict with Murtha;

• "Honest citizens, who are berated, cursed and threatened by Murtha goons;

• "Taxpayers, who have to come up with the money for Murtha's self-serving appropriations 'earmarks;'

• "Troops in Iraq, who are unjustly characterized by Murtha for having 'killed innocent civilians in cold blood;'

• "Honest politicians, who object to the 'bully-boy' tactics employed by Murtha in getting his way; and

• "Anyone who dares to disagree with or vote against John Murtha.

"'Screw them' might well be the epitaph inscribed on Murtha's tombstone," Bailey stated.

So Congressman, your MoveOn.org fundraising communique leads me to respond in kind – Go screw yourself!

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

John Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam case, decided to bring the level of political dialog to his own level.

"Screw them," Rep. John Murtha said of Republicans in an email sent to the liberal political group MoveOn.org on Wednesday. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who is urging a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, added that he needs its members' help to throw GOP congressmen "out of power -- as many of them as possible."

"A year ago when I presented my plan for Iraq, I did it to provide leadership and protect our troops," Murtha stated in his email. "The Republicans have spent their time name-calling while the situation for our troops in Iraq gets worse. They've tried to smear me, other veterans, Democrats, you and anybody who stands up to them.

"Well, let me say one thing right now: screw them," the 16-term congressman declared. "Those gravestones at Arlington cemetery don't say Democrat or Republican on them. We are all patriots.

I don’t believe you are a patriot. I don’t care how long you served or how many decorations you have – your desire to cut and run in the face of the enemy is a cowardly abrogation of the security of the United States.
And I think this presentation of your record, Congressman Murtha, bears that assertion out.

Also on Thursday, Larry Bailey, president of Vets for the Truth (VFTT) -- an organization working to "boot Murtha" from Congress on Nov. 7 -- agreed that the congressman's attitude in his email is something voters should consider.

Bailey told Cybercast News Service: "'Screw them' is what John Murtha has said for 32 years to:

• "Iraq War veterans, who have tried unsuccessfully to discuss that conflict with Murtha;

• "Honest citizens, who are berated, cursed and threatened by Murtha goons;

• "Taxpayers, who have to come up with the money for Murtha's self-serving appropriations 'earmarks;'

• "Troops in Iraq, who are unjustly characterized by Murtha for having 'killed innocent civilians in cold blood;'

• "Honest politicians, who object to the 'bully-boy' tactics employed by Murtha in getting his way; and

• "Anyone who dares to disagree with or vote against John Murtha.

"'Screw them' might well be the epitaph inscribed on Murtha's tombstone," Bailey stated.

So Congressman, your MoveOn.org fundraising communique leads me to respond in kind – Go screw yourself!

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess dirty talk is a much more serious issue than financial fraud that cost investors $2.4 million.

After investors sued a company whose new breast-cancer detector turned out to be ineffective, a firm partly owned by the Democrat fighting for Mark Foley's congressional seat stepped in.

Tim Mahoney's company, though, didn't side with the investors, who included a former deputy CIA director and a media empire heiress.

Instead, Mahoney's Boca Raton-based vFinance Inc. bought out the assets -- but not the liabilities -- of a deep-pocketed investment group that sold shares in the cancer-detector company. The plaintiffs said the purchase of Sterling Financial Investment Group's assets was a fraudulent effort to hide ill-gotten gains and will make it tougher for them to collect if they win the suit filed in December 2005 in federal court in Texas.

''At the very least, this was unethical. vFinance showed up at the party and took away the money that should be part of a judgment,'' said the plaintiffs' attorney, Mark Kincaid.

vFinance was recently added to the suit along with Sterling and the cancer-detector company DOBI. All deny wrongdoing and say investors knew the risks of speculating on the market. Through his campaign, Mahoney, vFinance's chairman who is not named in the suit, declined to comment and deferred questions to the company's attorney, Peter Ticktin.

This stripping of assets while leaving only liabilities seems to be a pattern among liberals. That is a big part of why Air America, which filed for bankruptcy today, was able to survive – once its creators ran up debt, they simply sold the assets and left those owed money holding the bag. Highly unethical – but seemingly an approved practice if you are on the left end of the political spectrum.

And one more reason to vote Republican.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

He is “traveling abroad”. I’d be surprised if he bothers returning to the country.

A fundraiser and political confidant of Gov. Rod Blagojevich missed his arraignment Friday on federal charges that he swindled investors and used fraud to get a $10 million loan.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, 51, was traveling overseas but intends to return to face the charges next week, defense attorney Joseph J. Duffy told U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel.

Wednesday's indictments caught the real estate and fast food entrepreneur by surprise, Duffy told the judge.

"I spoke with him this morning and he told me that he was aware of his obligation as a citizen, and he was prepared to meet that obligation," Duffy said. The judge continued the arraignment to next Thursday.

The attorney said Rezko also would miss a court appearance later Friday on separate charges that he and millionaire campaign contributor Stuart Levine plotted to shake down investment firms seeking state business for kickbacks.
Duffy told reporters he did not know Rezko's exact whereabouts.

Prosecutors had said after the two indictments were unsealed that Rezko, of suburban Wilmette, could be considered a fugitive if he failed to show up for his arraignment. An arrest warrant was issued earlier this week.

Given the level of corruption endemic in the Illinois Democrat Party, the shakedowns and kickbacks of which Mr. Rezko is accused are no surprise. Starting with the Chicago machine and oozing on Downstate, there is a long history of such shenanigans among Democrats in the state. Indeed, that is why the state went over two decades without electing a Democrat as governor – and why the GOP refused to stand behind former governor George Ryan when his illegal conduct was uncovered.

My question is when the indictment of Blagojevich will be handed down.

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

That seems to be the strategy of Ronnie Earle in the Tom DeLay case. After all, how else can you explainthe fact that only a few hundred dollars of expenses related to the Tom DeLay investigation were reported prior to the indictment of the former GOP congressman, while tens of thousands were reported afterwards?

Weeks before Texas Republican Tom DeLay resigned from Congress, five of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's staffers traveled to Washington, D.C., and pursued their investigation of DeLay at a cost of more than $40,000.

The expenditures, made six months after DeLay was indicted by a grand jury that heard evidence presented by Earle's staff, are documented in records obtained by the Houston Chronicle on Thursday. Under open records law, the newspaper had asked for material on the cost of the probe.

Rosemary Lehmberg, a top Earle deputy, said Thursday that Earle's team traveled to Washington from Austin to interview witnesses in preparation for DeLay's trial, which is still pending.

Almost all the spending for the investigation of DeLay was made only after he was indicted in September 2005, according to the records.

Of the $41,103 that Earle's office said reflected all the money spent pursuing the case, only $313 was documented before the indictment. Yet Earle's probe of DeLay began in February 2003.

Lehmberg said it is possible some of the expenses, such as a $3,000 fee for transcribing witness statements, involved witnesses interviewed before DeLay was indicted and that the transcripts were produced afterward.

Oh, and by the way, Earle refuses to disclose how he is spending the public's money for nearly half his expenses related to the case. I gues that we, the little people, just ae not entitled to know how he pissed-away $19,000.

Ronnie Earle -- unethical by any definition.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a sign of two things -- the lack of a substantive platform and the desire to win at any cost. The Democrats have decided that if they cannot win on substance, they can just dig up dirt -- real or imagined -- on their opponents.

In the wake of the Mark Foley page scandal, Democrats are targeting the personal lives of Republicans in numerous key House races as part of a campaign to capitalize on voter disgust with the messy personal lives and alleged character defects among elected officials.

Although Democrats' internal polling shows that the Foley scandal is resonating deeply only in half a dozen races, party operatives are calculating that GOP candidates are now unusually vulnerable to personal attacks, several candidates and strategists said.

Opponents are questioning how one candidate tried to pick up women in a bar. Another wants to raise allegations of violence against a fomer girlfriend that were investigated by the police and found lacking. Still another wants to focus on a three-decade-old DUI and a car accident years later. None of the charges are particularly relevant to the race in which they are being raised, but instead show a desperation and a desire to sink into the mud as a strategy for victory.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been trying to sort through Harry Reid's confusing financial disclosure scandal for the last couple of days. I'm still trying to get a handle on all of the details, but have come to a conclusion similar to that of the Washington Post.

THE BEST CASE for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is that he was sloppy about financial disclosure rules in accounting for a real estate deal on which he made a $700,000 profit. The more unattractive case is that the senator's inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid's friendship with Jay Brown isn't exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid's dealings doesn't cast the senator in an attractive light. Neither does his response to the AP story, which indicates a casual disregard for the importance of accurate reporting of lawmakers' financial affairs.

The real problem here is not necessarily the deal itself -- it is the cover-up. Why hang up on a reporter who calls asking questions? Why attack teh integrity of those who raise questions about the deal? Why not simply issue amended financial disclosure materials? By failing to act, Harry Reid created an appearance of impropriety where I and others would have been willing to let the matter go. Instead, like any number of perceived financial irregularities by politicians on both sides of the aisle, we are forced to look more closely for wrongdoing where there may not be any.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

One has to wonder, though, what the full story is.

Did the former governor recognize he can’t defeat Godzillary? Is there some family issue that takes precedence over political ambitions – or perhaps a potentially embarrassing revelation Warner wants to forestall. Or should we take his statement at face value?

Former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) announced this morning that he will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he wants to spend more time with his family.

In a statement released shortly before his 11 a.m. press conference here, Warner said, "This has been a difficult decision, but for me, it's the right decision." He said he made up his mind after celebrating this father's 81st birthday in Connecticut and touring colleges with his oldest daughter.

"I know these moments are never going to come again. This weekend made clear what I'd been thinking about for many weeks -- that while politically this appears to be the right time for me to take the plunge -- at this point, I want to have a real life.

"And while the chance may never come again, I shouldn't move forward unless I'm willing to put everything else in my life on the back burner."

Maybe I’m a cynic, but I’m guessing that this is not all there is. After all, “spending more time with my family” is often a euphemism for “I’m trying to avoid a scandal.” But I hope that isn’t the case, because even while I disagree with Mark Warner on many issues, I have always had the impression that he was a decent guy – and I’m not so cynical that I wouldn’t like to see him be every bit as clean as he appears at first glance.

Posted by: Greg at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that this is not at all out of line with the underlying intent of the Founders – not that government should be restricting the ownership and possession of firearms, but rather that they should be encouraging it as part of one’s duty as a citizen.

Say an earthquake snaps a dam and the full force of the Boise River floods the Treasure Valley, driving untold thousands toward high ground.

Or maybe the subdivisions spreading west from Boise finally push big-box, subwoofer, exit-ramp America right up to this plateau of mint and alfalfa fields, where rural lives have passed in peace since Quakers settled a century ago.

However humanity’s rush may arrive, a town must prepare. Greenleaf, population 862, is not taking the task lightly. Thus the proposed language for Section 2, Chapter 6, Subsection 2 of the Greenleaf City Code.

“Heads of households to maintain firearms,” the heading announces.

“In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants,” the proposal says, “it is recommended that every head of household residing in the city limits maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and obtain appropriate training relating to proper, safe and lawful handling of firearms.”

I’m for more guns in our society, not fewer. Today’s gun laws are destined to keep the law-abiding, responsible citizens of this country disarmed and vulnerable – both to the criminal class and the government. But Jeffersonian principles support the idea that the people should always be able to overpower a tyrannical government that has become destructive of their liberties, which has the side-benefit of enabling them to deal with those of their fellow citizens who would threaten their life, liberty, or property.

In the end, gun ownership is about ensuring self-reliance and not dependence on government.

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that this is not at all out of line with the underlying intent of the Founders – not that government should be restricting the ownership and possession of firearms, but rather that they should be encouraging it as part of one’s duty as a citizen.

Say an earthquake snaps a dam and the full force of the Boise River floods the Treasure Valley, driving untold thousands toward high ground.

Or maybe the subdivisions spreading west from Boise finally push big-box, subwoofer, exit-ramp America right up to this plateau of mint and alfalfa fields, where rural lives have passed in peace since Quakers settled a century ago.

However humanityÂ’s rush may arrive, a town must prepare. Greenleaf, population 862, is not taking the task lightly. Thus the proposed language for Section 2, Chapter 6, Subsection 2 of the Greenleaf City Code.

“Heads of households to maintain firearms,” the heading announces.

“In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants,” the proposal says, “it is recommended that every head of household residing in the city limits maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and obtain appropriate training relating to proper, safe and lawful handling of firearms.”

I’m for more guns in our society, not fewer. Today’s gun laws are destined to keep the law-abiding, responsible citizens of this country disarmed and vulnerable – both to the criminal class and the government. But Jeffersonian principles support the idea that the people should always be able to overpower a tyrannical government that has become destructive of their liberties, which has the side-benefit of enabling them to deal with those of their fellow citizens who would threaten their life, liberty, or property.

In the end, gun ownership is about ensuring self-reliance and not dependence on government.

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

But hey, at least he didn't send anyone a creepy email. And I'd love to know why the GOP is not all over this scandal.

With all the Democrats screaming about Mark Foley, we wonder why there's hardly a peep from Republicans about Dean P. Proffitt.

DebbieSchlussel.com has learned that Proffitt--the indicted chief of a Missouri Trucking School----is THE Democratic candidate for the Missouri House of Representatives from Missouri's 151st District. As we reported in September, Proffitt was indicted because, as superintendent of the South Central Career Center Truck Driver Training School in West Plains, Missouri, his school provided answers for the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Test to Muslim students seeking to fraudulently pass the test and seek CDLs and Hazardous Materials hauling certificates.

A whopping 60% of those taking the CDL test at Proffitt's trucking school were Muslims, who'd traveled from all over the U.S. and the world to take the test specifically at the school. That's because his school enabled Muslims to cheat. Some never even attended classes and can't drive trucks. As we reported yesterday, there has already been one fatality linked to a Muslim driver from the school, the killing of an Oklahoma State Trooper. True to the phonetics of his surname, Dean Proffitt apparently cared more about making a profit than America's security.

So let's get this straight. This guy is under indictment for enabling hundreds of folks to fraudulently get a CDL -- which makes it possible for a potential terrorist to create and transport an 18-wheel truck-bomb. Not only that, but one of his alums who obtained his license fraudulently recently murdered an Oklahoma state trooper. But nobody is saying anything about it? Why is this not a serious scandal?

H/T Debbie Schlussel

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

“Professional queers” like Mike Rogers tell us that homosexuals have a right to be left alone, and to reveal their sexual orientation in their own time and own way – or not at all.

But that rule doesn’t apply to homosexuals who dare to engage in the heresy of independent thought and deviation from the political orthodoxy of the “gay rights” movement.

Homosexual activist Mike Rogers said he will reveal the identities of homosexual Republicans on Capitol Hill each day "for hypocritically opposing gay rights for political reasons when they themselves are gay."

But according to Rogers, who runs a web log called BlogActive.com, he's "reporting on hypocrisy," not "outing them."

"The right wing of this country is so out of control beating up gay people," Rogers told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday.

Rogers named two congressional staffers who he believes had "a vested interest in protecting closeted men like former Republican Congressman Mark Foley so the majority can remain in power." One of those staffers left Capitol Hill earlier this year.

Rogers also blamed the Republican Party for pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment and the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

"It's [because of] those kinds of things that it's time to say 'enough, it's over,'" Rogers said. "Those who equate being gay with immorality will be surprised just how diverse the House Republican Caucus is when it comes to sexual orientation.

"The party is over for these guys who think they can be gay and beat up gay people, and there are a lot of them in the Republican Party," Rogers added.

In other words, homosexuals are only as free to exercise their political rights as the “queer mafia” like Rogers are willing to permit them to be. If they don’t hew the right (or is that “left”?) political line, they lose what we keep being told is an essential right.

It rather makes me wonder if folks Rogers and his ilk are behind the Foley scandal, outing him not because of his sex talk with a former page but because of his politics. After all, folks like Rogers still view Gerry Studds as a hero and a role model, even though he actually engaged in sex acts with a page while that boy was serving his internship. The difference (other than the fact that Studds’ actions were much more repulsive) is that Studds is appropriately “progressive” in his politics, while Foley was a conservative. Thus Studds was and is exempt from criticism while the activists seek to destroy gay Republicans because they dare to support conservative policies.

What moral midgets like Rogers fail to recognize is that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are significantly more tolerant of homosexuals than he is. We judge them based upon their individual behavior and character, not upon their adherence to the correct set of political beliefs. We don’t use their sexuality as a club to beat them into submission – that is the job for Mike Rogers in the other intolerant leftists of the gay no-rights movement.

And remember, this is not the first time Mike Rogers has attempted to intimidate gay conservatives.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.

But, of course, we wouldnÂ’t want folks to have to prove their identity and citizenship in order to register or vote, would we? That might make it even easier to detect fraudulent registrants.

St. Louis Election Board officials say they've discovered at least 1,492 "potentially fraudulent" voter registration cards - including three from dead people and one from a 16-year-old - among the thousands pouring in before today's voter registration deadline for the Nov. 7 election.

City Republican elections director Scott Leiendecker said the board's staff expects to find even more bogus voter-registration applications among the thousands remaining to be processed. The board plans to turn all the questionable cards over to city Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce for investigation and possible prosecution, said board chairman Kimberley Mathis.

The board says all the questionable cards were turned in by one group - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, commonly known as ACORN.

Brian Mellor, the group's election counsel, said that it welcomed any prosecutions of workers who turn in fraudulent cards. "We try very hard to monitor the employees, but there are chances of things slipping through," he said.

My buddy Dan keeps telling me that he is unaware of any history of voter fraud in Missouri – maybe this will stick in his memory next time we talk about requiring the same sort of identification necessary to get a passport or cash a check.

And is anyone else struck by the fact that fficial">once again it is ACORN that is the source of hundreds of fraudulent registration cards? They have a history of this sort of stuff around the nation whenever they run voter registration drives. Think we could get a RICO prosecution over this issue?

Posted by: Greg at 10:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Ken Silverstein of Harpers explains why he didnÂ’t run the Foley story months ago.

But interestingly enough, we should consider the reaction of several lefty websites.

Among those who received information about the story but declined to pursue it were liberal outlets such as Talkingpointsmemo.com, Americablog.com, and The New Republic (The Hill, Roll Call, and Time magazine also had the Foley story, though I'm not certain when it came to their attention.).

Excuse me – these reliably liberal websites and publications knew about the story but didn’t see fit to go public? Weren’t Josh Marshal and John Aravosis sufficiently concerned about the safety of the pages to publish the information on their site – or to turn the material over to the police or FBI? Shouldn’t they have known that these emails indicated serious predatory behavior? Or did they simply see emails that were creepy, inappropriate, and unprofessional, but not really indicative of anything more?

Or do they hold themselves to lower standards than they hold the House leadership?

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

In her own words --Nancy Pelosi on the need for a missile defense program.

"The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile."

Really, Mrs. Pelosi?

There once existed a Democrat Party filled with men and women who supported a strong national defense. Except for Joe Lieberman, rejected by his own party, they are gone.

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

When the Dems get hammered by a member of the Washington Post editorial board, you know ther policy proposals really suck, where they exist at all.

If Democrats cared about poor women and minorities, they would be clamoring to reform Social Security. But instead they get a childish gratification out of stamping their feet and refusing to discuss the subject.

They can't muster the courage to block the suspension of habeas corpus. But when it comes to blocking entitlement reform, the Democrats ride out to battle.

I'm not saying that Republicans are at all better, and of course elections breed some policy timidity. But the infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters' economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lost interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next month, it's hard to see what they will do with it.

In other words, at least the GOP, for all its current problems, is trying to do something. It is difficult to find an agenda among the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.

I suppose there are a number of questions here. What was the content of the messages? What did Kolbe -- an openly gay Republican -- do about them? Who has been holding on to these messages since that time? What are the motives for releasing them now? And why is the Washington Post showing more deference to their secrets than to those involving America's nationl security?

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

Now this takes the date at which someone knew about the Foley problem back five years earlier -- but there is a problem. The Washington Post won't tell us what is in the messages in question.

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

In other words, the Washington Post knows what was in the messages, but we are expected to take it on faith that there is something improper about them. While the paper is prepared to spill national security secrets on the front page, it will hold back information needed for the American people to decide for themselves whether Kolbes actions were responsible or gross malfeasance. Neither will the Washington post share the source of their information with us, to permit us to assessits credibility -- or determine when the source knew of the emails and why that source did not come forward earlier. Also undisclosed is whether these messages have been shared with the House Leadership so that they can be investigated by the Ethics Committee -- or the authorities for criminal investigation.

Indeed, there are more questions than answers in this story -- and at least some of them need to be answered by the Washington Post.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

I've mentioned the 1980s page scandal and the anemic response of the Democrat controlled House of Representatives to the physical sexual misconduct with pages. Former Carter Administration official Joseph Califano, who headed the investigation, offers his defense of his work. I think it falls short.

The most troubling aspect of the Mark Foley scandal is not his conduct, disgusting as it was, but what the response of the leadership reveals about the rancid state of partisanship and the consequent decline of the House of Representatives. Speaker Dennis Hastert presides over a legislative body so infested with mistrust that it doesn't even have a functioning ethics committee. Since the House is incapable of washing its own dirty laundry and policing itself, the speaker has to turn over that responsibility to the attorney general and the executive branch of government.

Compare the current situation with the way Speaker Tip O'Neill and the House handled the last scandal involving sexual misconduct with pages, in the summer of 1982.

Yes, let's compare the responses -- because the GOP comes off looking much better than the Democrats, by any reasonable standard.

On The CBS Evening News With Dan Rather that June, two former pages, their teen-age faces silhouetted to hide their identity, claimed they were victims of sexual abuse by members of Congress. One described homosexual advances by members; the other shocked the nation when he said he had engaged in homosexual relations with three members and procured prostitutes for others. The CBS broadcast sparked a wildfire of reports and rumors about sexual abuse of pages and drug use by members and pages.

I cannot help but note that the original charges were later recanted by the pages , who claimed that the CBS reporter put words in their mouth and distorted what they said. Seems that Dan Rather's newscast was lying to the American people from a very early date.

But let's set aside the sins of CBS and note a difference. One situation involved charges of ACTUAL sex between members and pages. The other involved (initially) several emails that were weird but not overtly sexual. That explains the difference in how the leadership would respond.

Within a week the House had authorized its ethics committee to conduct a full investigation of allegations of "sexual misconduct, illicit drug distribution and use, and offers of preferential treatment in exchange for sexual favors or drugs by Members, officers or employees of the House." House Speaker O'Neill and Minority Leader Robert Michel asked me to be special counsel to the ethics committee, co-chaired by Ohio Democrat Lou Stokes and South Carolina Republican Floyd Spence. I was allowed to select my own staff and given a commitment that I could follow the evidence wherever it led, because, as O'Neill and Michel said, "The integrity of the House is at stake."

And within hours of the salacious IMs being made public, the House leadership had driven Foley from Congress. Within a week an investigation was announced, but the Democrat leadership refused to consent to the appointment of a respected former head of the FBI to head the investigation because he had criticized the Democrat president under whom he had served and had donated money to the current Republican president. Clearly the current Democrat leadership believes that something more important than the integrity of the House is at stake -- the chance to use the scandal as a wedge issue to seize control of the House.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani was the point man for the Justice Department and its grand jury investigation of the charges. We agreed to exchange all relevant information and that there would be no leaks. Allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use were raw meat for a voracious, scandal-hungry Washington press corps, and Giuliani and I came across rumors and fragments of information about many members of Congress. We shared them all with each other, and there were no leaks from him or me.

The big surprise came when the two pages whom CBS had put on its evening news show recanted. They testified under oath that they had lied and that CBS reporter John Ferrugia had put words in their mouths. But uncovering the lies of the pages and the reckless reporting of CBS didn't end our investigation. We had received a host of allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use and sale by other pages and House members. We interviewed, under oath, some 2,000 past and present pages, adults who had supervised and taught them, congressional staffers, and House members. We issued scores of subpoenas.

And the FBI (which concluded the initial set of emails was not a criminal matter) is investigating again now that the IMs have been turned over to it. The matter will be investigated by the Ethics committee. Remember -- we are only 10 days from the initial revelation of the IMs.

We found no evidence of widespread sexual misconduct. We did find that Rep. Daniel Crane, R-Ill., had had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page and that Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page and had made advances to other teen-age male pages.

When I reported our findings to O'Neill and Michel, the dishonor that these members had brought on the House infuriated the two leaders. "Get it out," they said, "and let the committee recommend disciplinary action," which its four Democratic and four Republican members did, unanimously, in July 1983. Crane and Studds were censured by the House. Crane resigned his seat. Studds chose to stay on and was retained in office by his constituents for 13 more years.

But O'Neill didn't want the Ethics Committee to expel either of the members who engaged in sexual conduct with pages. Rather than really deal with the integrity of the House and say that such conduct was wrong, he supported mere censure. Newt Gingrich argued for expulsion of both the abusive congressmen -- including close ally Dan Crane -- but the Democrat-controlled leadership firmly opposed such a move. Democrats kept Studds -- a sexual predator -- around for over another decade and even gave him a committee chairmanship. Sonds like they had no concern at all about the integrity of the House. On the other hand, Crane was thrashed in his reelection attempt.

But the ethics committee had done its job well, we believed. Our investigation found other misdeeds:

House members — two Democrats and a Republican — had used drugs. And between 1978 and 1982 a number of House and Senate employees were involved in illicit use and distribution of drugs. All were named (Barry Goldwater Jr., who retired from the House; Fred Richmond, who admitted buying and using drugs and later pleaded guilty to tax evasion; and John Burton, who entered rehab and became a recovering addict with a productive career in the California state legislature). The employees were fired and prosecuted. The House adopted all the changes we recommended to provide far more attentive supervision of pages.

Note again -- the Republican, scion of a major political family, was run out of Congress. The Democrats continued to have active careers in politics -- until one pleaded guilty to other crimes. The other is referred to with respect. Interestingly enough, only staffers and aides were prosecuted -- no member of Congress faced criminal charges.

The course the House took in that scandal, and its reaction to the current one, show the difference between a leadership that saw a threat to the integrity of the House of Representatives and one that sees a threat to its continuing control of the institution. It's useful today to remember that there was a time when partisanship took second place to trust and the House leadership had the strength to wash its own dirty laundry.

Califano dishonors his work with this closing paragraph. The Democrat leadership allowed child molesters to stay in the House after knowing they had sex with pages. The GOP ran a member out of Congress after discovering conduct that may well be criminal but which involved no physical abuse of pages, only sexual talk. Who is the partisan here? Clearly the Democrats -- who would be howling if a gay Congressman were outed and disgraced over the initial emails.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1406 words, total size 9 kb.

He couldn't pass the bar exam, but he has tried to pass himself off to the voters of Tennessee as a lawyer.

Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Harold Ford Jr. referred to himself as a lawyer earlier this week, but the congressman has not passed the bar exam.

Michael Powell, senior adviser to the Ford campaign, said U.S. Rep. Ford took the Tennessee bar exam in February 1997 and failed. He said that was the only time Rep. Ford has taken the test.

Rep. Ford, of Memphis, got his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1996, according to his congressional Web site.

He said Tuesday during a meeting with Chattanooga Times Free Press editors and reporters that Republican opponent Bob Corker has said the next senator should be a businessman and not a lawyer.

"I told Senator (Lamar) Alexander, I said, ‘I won’t hold it against you if I’m elected, and there’s two lawyers in the delegation who try their hardest to work through the issues," Rep. Ford said.

Corker campaign spokesman Todd Womack said, "If Congressman Ford will stretch the truth about his own resume, what else will he stretch the truth about?" Mr. Powell said it is his understanding that Rep. Ford was joking when he made reference to being a lawyer during TuesdayÂ’s meeting.

Sorry, that explanation makes no sense. It is obvious that Ford was not joking -- he was lying about his qualifications.

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

The Mark Foley scandal is not about sexual orientation. It is about sexual deviancy and inappropriate exploitation of young people by a powerful politician. As such, I want to echo the comment of Ann Lowry, from her column published in the Star-Tribune.

The bottom line is that it does not matter that Mark Foley is gay.

Now I may disagree with her next conclusion (that the GOP leadership ignored evidence of a problem), but that statement is the one that really matters.

This is not a scandal about homosexuality – no matter how much a few on the Religious Right and many on the Homosexual Left want to turn it into an opportunity to purge Congress and of Republicans who are gay. The problem is that Foley is a sick freak with a serious psychological and moral problem who likely has broken laws and probably cannot be safely permitted to remain at large in society or on the Internet.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

I think that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has clearly articulated the record of Democrat racism and criminal activity in the Maryland Senate race.

October 4, 2006

Congressman Ben Cardin
Ben Cardin for Senate
22 Bloomsbury Avenue
Catonsville, Maryland 21228

Governor Howard Dean
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Senator Chuck Schumer
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Mr. Terry Lierman
Chairman, Maryland Democratic Party
188 Main Street, Suite 1
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Congressman Cardin, Governor Dean, Chairman Lierman and Senator Schumer:

For several months, I have been trailed by Democrat operatives filming my public events. At these events – speeches, press conferences, county fairs and parades – my every word and move has been recorded.

I realize this has become a part of modern campaigning and I welcome the scrutiny. In fact, I always make a point to say a friendly hello to whomever the Democrat Party sends to follow me. However, recent actions have crossed the line from political activity to an invasion of privacy.

On the morning of September 30, I participated in a homecoming ceremony for the Army National Guard 243rd Engineers. The event – as fitting for the occasion – was non-political. Republicans and Democrats joined together to welcome home brave men and women returning from Iraq and I attended in my official capacity to spend time with the troops and their families.

While speaking with two mothers whose sons had died in Iraq, I noticed the ever present Democrat operative filming our conversation. A conversation with parents who have lost a loved one in combat is private in nature and has no place in partisan politics, and certainly not in the smear campaign you have waged against me even before I entered the race for United States Senate. The filming of this conversation demonstrates a callous disregard for families who have lost a loved one and is an indefensible invasion of privacy.

Unfortunately, I have come to expect such ugly, gutter politics from you. Congressman Cardin, while saying you have expressed outrage to “all concerned parties” for the racist comments on your senior staffer’s blog, you have yet to apologize to me. Chairman Dean, your personal pollster, Cornell Belcher, advocated racist attacks to “knock” me down and “discredit” me, and yet I have received no apology from you. And, Senator Schumer, your staffers pled guilty to a crime when they stole my credit report and violated my privacy and that of my family, but I have had no apology from you either.

I did not think until this past Saturday, however, that such ugliness would intrude upon the return of our troops from Iraq. As I told your colleague, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who attended the event, this action represents a new low in Maryland politics and has no place in this campaign.

My campaign is focused on having a conversation with the voters of our state about the issues affecting Maryland and I am committed to building bridges over that which divides us. But, ugly partisan political tricks only work to divide our communities and represent the very type of political behavior voters are sick of.

If your respective organizations are as concerned as I am about the use of such poor judgment by your staff(s), you would take immediate steps to hold all responsible parties accountable.

I eagerly await your prompt response.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL S. STEELE

No apologies to the victim of illegal and racist activities and statements by Democrat political operatives. I guess that doing so would legitimize the right of a black man to stray off the Democrat plantation.

Mr. Cardin, Mr. Dean, Mr. Schummer -- do the right thing. Apologize PERSONALLY to Steele for the misdeeds you and your staffs have perpetrated.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 645 words, total size 4 kb.

One would think that the former head of the FBI under Bill Clinton would be an acceptable selection to head up any investigation of the House Page Scandal. That isn't the case, though -- because he is an honest man and independent thinker on political matters. Who objects to his selection? The Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Thursday he is looking for a high-caliber figure to step in and fix flaws in the congressional page program that left the teenagers vulnerable to sexual advances.

Hastert was on the verge of naming former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who boasts a long, high-profile career in law enforcement, for the post. But the speaker held off because of objections from Democrats.

Hastert had called House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday to notify her that he intended to hire Freeh to overhaul the program, their aides said. But Pelosi suggested it was too soon to make decisions about changing the program, and that Freeh might be the wrong man for the job.

“That's about public relations for the Republican leaders, it's not about protecting the children,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview with The Associated Press. “It smacks of 'blame the victim.'"

The possibility that Republican leaders covered up evidence that Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., was making inappropriate overtures to pages needs to be investigated first, before any changes in the program are considered, said Pelosi spokeswoman Jen Crider.

But Crider noted that Hastert, R-Ill., could name Freeh without Pelosi's support if he chose.

At his news conference Thursday about the House ethics committee's investigation of the page scandal, Hastert didn't cite any candidates for the job of overhauling the page program.

“We're looking for a person of high caliber to advise us on the page program,” he said at a news conference in Illinois. “I reached out to the Democrat leader and shared with her some of the ideas and we hope to resolve this soon.”

What are the real objections to Freeh?

Freeh urged Justice Department superiors to seek an independent counsel to investigate the 1996 presidential fundraising scandal, which focused largely on Democrats and the White House. The Justice Department turned him down.

After leaving office, Freeh was harshly critical of Clinton in his book, “My FBI.” He wrote that, during Clinton's presidency, “whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction.”

“His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out,” said Freeh, who said he was preoccupied for eight years at the FBI with Clinton investigations, including Whitewater, 1996 presidential fundraising and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

In other words, there seems to be concern that Freeh might be an honest and impartial figure to head up the investigation, and that he might look under Democrat rocks to find misconduct or malfeasance. The Democrats are looking for political advantage -- the Republicans are looking to safeguard children.

Mr. Speaker, name Freeh to the post over teh objections of Nancy pelosi and the Democrats. It is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

I posted this last night, and want to give the flip side of the issue as prominent play as I gave the original arguments of Drudge and Passionate America.

For the past two days, a conservative blogger has ginned up publicity for his work outing a 21-year-old young man--a former congressional page and current deputy campaign manager for a heartland Republican congressman--who received sexually explicit instant messages from disgraced Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley when he was 17 and 18 years old. I have received several e-mails from the blogger and readers flogging the post.

I refused to link to the blogger then and even though the Drudge Report has plastered screaming headlines about the blogger's scoop, I refuse to link to it now. There was absolutely no good reason to expose the former congressional page's name and identity. Seizing on ABC News' redaction failure and reporting errors (more on that in a moment) to play gotcha in a feeble attempt to avenge Foley is not a sufficient reason to obliterate the young man's privacy. The young man was the prey, not the predator.

Nobody is acting well here. ABC News seems to have made an honest error when it failed to completely redact the young man's AOL IM handle. That's how the conservative blogger traced the exposed man's identity. But in the wake of the Drudge pounding tonight, the news network surreptitiously edited its misreporting on the young man's age at the time of one of the IM exchanges without bothering to make clear it was a correction.

ABC's website now reads as follows.

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18.

That does change matters -- and indicates sloppy work by the ABC reporters and editors involved.

But even that still raises some of the legal issues noted in the MSNBC article I linked below -- while disgusting and repugnant, Foley's actions may well have been legal due to the requirement of state and federal laws that obscene communication be with someone under 16 amd the whole age of consent issue. These matters could impact the investigations in an interesting way -- and make the Gerry Studds comparison more pertinant, as he actually engaged in sex with a 17-year-old. Is talking dirty to a page really worse than sodomizing one?

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

While the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley are beyond acceptable, it is possible that they were not criminal -- because he was engaged in an exchange with an 18-year-old adult!

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

Now Democrats and homosexual activists have for years claimed that Rep. Gerry Studd's sexual dalliances with a 17-year-old page were a private matter and acceptable because the boy was above the age of consent at the time. Should this young man prove to be an adult, will they now acknowledge that they would have been making an issue over LEGAL sexual activity by a homosexual -- and that they have been applying a different standard to a gay Republican than to gay Democrats?

Will ABC and Brian Ross admit that they have deceived the American public if the conversations were with an adult rather than a juvenile?

And will pigs sprout wings and fly round the Capitol Rotunda?

UPDATE: MSNBC has this piece on why thre may be no crime (or at least no prosecution) at all in the emails or IMs.

Investigators could consider federal obscenity laws, experts said, but the law prohibiting disseminating obscene material to children applies only to those under 16.

Benjamin Vernia, a former federal prosecutor specializing in such cases, compared Foley’s online conversations with pages to “grooming,” a law enforcement term for the way sexual predators bring along their underage victims. Grooming is a red flag for authorities, Vernia said, but it’s rarely enough to bring charges.

The question for federal investigators is whether FoleyÂ’s online chats ever led to real encounters. One chat transcript suggests Foley and a page had met in San Diego, but the chat doesnÂ’t indicate what took place.

Even if a sexual encounter occurred, however, that wonÂ’t necessarily be enough to lead to charges. It depends on how old the pages were at the time and what the age of consent was in that state.

If a state law was broken and authorities can show Foley used the Internet to facilitate it, that could trigger federal jurisdiction, experts said.

Foley is scum. That is beyond question. But he may not be a criminal -- and this may all be much ado about legal actions with individuals above the age of consent in their respective jurisdictions. This may highlight that the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we get rid of our perverts, while Democrats reelect them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 4 kb.

In various conversations, I’ve had folks tell me that the Foley emails were sexual in nature. When I’ve stated they were not, I was accused of lying, of covering up, or of “parsing words.” But that simply is not the case. Let me reproduce for you the text of the emails that the GOP leadership, the press, and the FBI were aware of prior to last week.

HereÂ’s the second (the first is just confirming that the email address is correct).

glad your home safe and soundÂ… we donÂ’t go back into session until Sept 5Â…. si itÂ’s a nice long breakÂ…. I am back in Florida nowÂ… its nice hereÂ… been raining todayÂ… it sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeksÂ…how old are you now?

In other words, just a chatty email. Except for that last question, I don’t see a thing that raises an eyebrow – and given the preexisting relationship between the two, it is not an outrageous question to ask in a breezy conversation.

The next email reads as follows.

I am in North CarolinaÂ…and it was 100 in New OrleansÂ…wow thatÂ’s really hotÂ… well do you miss DCÂ… Its raning here but 68 degrees so who can argueÂ… did you have fun at your conferenceÂ… what do you want for your birthday coming upÂ… what stuff do you like to do

Again, fairly innocuous stuff in a fairly breezy style – though since I don’t know the relevant dates I am unsure if the birthday is close to the time of the email. That might be a natural part of the conversation.

That was followed by this.

I just emailed willÂ…heÂ’s such a nice guyÂ…acts much older than his ageÂ…and hes really in great shapeÂ….i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now, heading to the gymÂ….whats school like for you this year?

Talk about mutual acquaintances is hardly outrageous – and since Foley was known to be something of a fitness buff, the comments about biking and working out shouldn’t surprise anyone. And more importantly, I see nothing sexual in this.

And then there is this email – the one that caused the young man to drop all communication.

how are you weathering the hurricaneÂ…are you safeÂ…send me an email pic of you as wellÂ….

An expression of concern following a natural disaster, and a request for a photo. I guess I donÂ’t see the sexual content here.

Overly friendly? Definitely. Unprofessional? I’d agree. Indicative of Foley’s immaturity? Yep. But a sign of sexual predation? I don’t think so – unless you have some OTHER information to add, information that the House leadership did not have.

On the other hand, someone did have this information – possibly Democrat officials or political operatives. What did they know and when did they know it? I hope that the investigations that have begun examine those questions as well.

This development is troubling – and I think the firing of this staffer is the minimum action needed.

The chief of staff for Republican Congressman Tom Reynolds, Kirk Fordham, resigned after questions were raised about his role in the handling of the congressional page scandal, according to Republican sources on Capitol Hill.

Those sources said Fordham, a former chief of staff for Congressman Mark Foley, had urged Republican leaders last spring not to raise questionable Foley e-mails with the full Congressional Page Board, made up of two Republicans and a Democrat.

"He begged them not to tell the page board," said one of the Republican sources.

ABC, however, wants to paint this as a case of scapegoating.

FordhamÂ’s resignation was demanded by Speaker Hastert.

Fordham was also instrumental in orchestrating Foley's abrupt resignation last week hours after ABC News confronted the congressman with sexually explicit instant messages allegedly sent to pages.

Fordham offered ABC News a deal if it would not publish the content of the instant messages.

"He said we could have the exclusive on the resignation if we did not run direct quotes from the instant messages," said Maddy Sauer, the ABC News producer who dealt with Fordham.

ABC News refused to make any such deal.

It is clear that FordhamÂ’s actions were not in the best interest of the House of Representatives or the page program, but were rather a case of covering for a friend. I suspect that when all is said and done we will find that Fordham knew much more than he claims at this time. IÂ’ll withhold judgment on his boss, Rep Tom Reynolds, until the situation become clearer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

Remember -- if the drop of the Dow (begun under Clinton and deepened by 9/11) and the increase in oil prices (caused by short supply, increased demand, and natural disasters) were all George Bush's fault, so is this.

The Dow Jones industrial average leaped into record territory Tuesday, highlighting Wall Street's long recovery from the popping of the technology bubble, the 2001 terrorist attacks and a wave of corporate scandals.

The new closing high of 11,727.34 highlights how much things have changed. In January 2000, it was all technology all the time. Internet firms without real business plans and pajama-clad day traders were the glamour kids. Then the bubble burst, Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. collapsed, and small investors ran for the hills.

And interestingly enough, the stock market today is much more solid than it was when teh slide began in January of 2000, when the Internet bubble propelled the rise in stock prices.

And oil dropped below $59.00 a barrel yesterday -- and I'm paying $1.89 a gallon for gas.

I love how George W, Bush is managing the economy and bringing down gas prices!

And I won't comment on the great job he has done preventing hurricanes this year.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the internet is a place where Gov. Mitt Romney has a lot of support.

There are the Texans for Mitt, the Tennesseeans for Mitt, the Iowans for Mitt. Then there are the Evangelicals for Mitt, the Catholics for Mitt and the Law Students for Mitt.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney isn't a declared candidate for president yet, but already several Web logs, or blogs, are sprouting up to promote the Republican for the White House in 2008.

Like the grass-roots efforts of old, this is the newfound Web-roots.

About 20 states now have their own Web sites with fans marketing Romney as the best choice to succeed President Bush. And that's in addition to other sites popping up with other groups, such as Women for Romney, Students for Romney and even "My Man Mitt," which is jumping the gun to ask readers to vote on who would make a great vice president for Romney.

"The Internet's such a powerful force in politics now that I think we could do some good things to get his name out," says Nathan Burd, who runs AmericansforMitt.com and is one of the founders of the movement to host sites in every state.

The blogs - the founders of which all say they are independent of the campaign - focus on a variety of issues, with some rounding up statements the governor has made about taxes, abortion or terrorism. Others post news clippings about Romney and commentary about his positions or the coverage he's getting.

Now IÂ’ve made no secret of my support for Romney, and recently became one of the co-bloggers over at Texans for Mitt Romney. And I keep seeing more and more support springing up for the man around the Internet.

I believe that Mitt will be teh man to beat in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.